Why arch so underrated?

Hi, everyone. Sorry about english. It is not my first language, and not even the second one.

Just my thoughts : I think Arch linux is without doubt one of the best distro`s today. It have everything you want from modern linux desktop. And before to say it i tried maybe 15 best different linuxes including slack, gentoo, fedora, ubuntu, mandriva, suse, debian and more...

I wonder, why it is so underrated? It is in 16 place now in DistroWatch table. I think it is unfair!

What can you say? Isn't it more popular then distrowatch shows?

P.S. the arch WIKI is unbeleaveble!!!

I guess distrowatch rates distros based on 'number of downloads'. Unlike other distros, where you'd download a new version atleast once in six months, Arch users just simply keep 'rolling'.

DistroWatch is the absolute /worst/ place to check for a distro's "rating". Likewise, I don't care how many people are using the distro I'm using (as long as it's decent enough to get support). I have to disagree with you on the underrated part - it's tends to be overrated alot; especially on these forums.

din said:

What can you say? Isn't it more popular then distrowatch shows?

Probably not, the difficulty level is higher than Mint or Ubuntu or Fedora or Suse or Mandriva.

The partitioning, for example, is not very user friendly. Also, getting Xorg and a working desktop requires a bit more effort, so I'm not surprised it's less popular. The Arch Wiki is fantastic though - makes the Ubuntu documentation look very poor in comparison. Pacman is really impressive too.

.

Probably because it's not user friendly.

Sealbhach said: Probably not, the difficulty level is higher than Mint or Ubuntu or Fedora or Suse or Mandriva.

Arch and Ubuntu aim for different "markets" of users.

Goll said: Probably because it's not user friendly.

I don`t get the "user friendly" talk. Even if you have to install vinduz first time you have also to learn. Most of people don't now how to install xp. Thay think its hard. So what? Does it mean vinduz is hard?

Anyone who run arch will tell you its not that hard.

Distrowatch ranking is based on the number of clicks per day and has nothing to do with real ratings or statistics. I firmly believe the ranking is there to draw attention and interest, that's all.

Page ratings are no way to rank a distro considering I use Xubuntu on an older computer yet I haven't checked the Xubuntu homepage much less the Ubuntu homepage in months. As such it's very hard to count the number of users a distro has as most methods are pretty unreliable, number of downloads for a distro don't work considering that I have a huge box of linux distros I've downloaded yet never used and trying to put some kind of survey in an installer usually won't work since most people never respond to them anyways. A good way to check how used a distro is to check out the community behind it even though that in itself isn't always reliable when it comes to distros like NetBSD where there is no real forums and such. Another thing to take in consideration is that homepages are less visited on rolling releases distros like Arch (unless distrowatch counts visiting the wiki or arch forums) or Gentoo.

Otherwise I'd say Arch is great however it seems to be overrated more than underrated on these forums. Although it all just comes to personal preference anyways

Goll said: Probably because it's not user friendly.

that is what people says! when you first understand Arch it is darn user friendly. I find Ubuntu harder to use, because I can't make Ubuntu they way I want my desktop to be, for me that is not User friendly at all.

Anyway...many people in the world does not speak English, and the fact that Arch Linux is English only (once you install a Dekstop you might be able to install language packs) makes it very hard for many people....

800 000 000 people speaks some kind of Chinese 400 000 000 people speaks English 350 000 000 people speaks Spanish 100 000 000 people speaks German over 100 000 000 people speaks French

(this is people soeaking the languages as primary language)

At least adding a Spanish, German and French translation to Arch will bring more users to it I guess...

PS: There is now estimated 8,5 million Ubuntu users, you can use that as a base and use Distrowatch to count how many people that are using other distros. The number wont be anything near correct, but it is an estimate.

Sealbhach said: Probably not, the difficulty level is higher than Mint or Ubuntu or Fedora or Suse or Mandriva.

The partitioning, for example, is not very user friendly. Also, getting Xorg and a working desktop requires a bit more effort, so I'm not surprised it's less popular. The Arch Wiki is fantastic though - makes the Ubuntu documentation look very poor in comparison. Pacman is really impressive too. .

Your hardware has some to do with the troubles you will have with one distro or another or even one version of the same distro & another version, many people experience troubles when upgrading versions of Ubuntu, Sabayon, whatever.

If you get through the initial install ok with Arch, instead of distro version upgrade problems you have the occasional inheritance of an upstream bug that gets through.

Downgrading packages is just so easy that once you know how, there are few problems that can cause much trouble to an Arch user.

*[Edit:] In response to the Arch is not user friendly type of statements: I find Arch to be the easiest of any OS/distro I have used in over 23 years of computing, to maintain, meaning upgrade, downgrade, install, remove packages & configuration is really simple too, but you still have to have a look at the Arch wiki to learn how-to. Arch is like everything else, you have to learn how to use it.*

nathangrubb said: distrowatch is the absolute /worst/ place to check for a distro's "rating". Likewise, i don't care how many people are using the distro i'm using (as long as it's decent enough to get support). I have to disagree with you on the underrated part - it's tends to be overrated alot; especially on these forums.

+1

handy said:

• but you still have to have a look at the Arch wiki to learn how-to. Arch is like everything else, you have to learn how to use it.*

For the majority of people who sit in front of a computer screen that is the exact definition of "not user friendly".

Why can't tech folk understand that most people don't want to have to learn how their computer works? They just want to use it like the TV or any other appliance.

.

I don't use Arch, but I think it's specifically meant for people that want to learn/build from the ground up, not the *majority of people.*

Sealbhach said: Why can't tech folk understand that most people don't want to have to learn how their computer works? They just want to use it like the TV or any other appliance.

Because we are unable to view things through that realm.

Sealbhach said: For the majority of people who sit in front of a computer screen that is the exact definition of "not user friendly".

Why can't tech folk understand that most people don't want to have to learn how their computer works? They just want to use it like the TV or any other appliance. .

You have to learn how to use windows or OSX or Ubuntu or Arch.

Unfortunately many people think that a tiny amount of typing every now & again is harder than pointing & clicking their way through.

It is so easy to fix things in Arch because there are not layers of obfuscation between the user & the problem.

I find that due to the KISS philosophy of Arch, it is easier to learn, & easier to diagnose a problem & therefore fix it.

handy said: You have to learn how to use windows or OSX or Ubuntu or Arch.

A Windows user, with a fully functioning system can migrate to Ubuntu and start using it easily without having to use the command line at all.

More importantly, they don't have to read manuals or wikis, they can go straight to Facebook which is more or less all they want.

This is even easier if they use Mint.

handy said: I find that due to the KISS philosophy of Arch, it is easier to learn, & easier to diagnose a problem & therefore fix it.

They're not interested in fixing things, they just want to use it.

.

Sealbhach said:

A Windows user, with a fully functioning system can migrate to Ubuntu and start using it easily without having to use the command line at all.

As long as they don't have a hardware issue, they have a good chance I'm sure.

Though they won't transition quite as simply as you make out, they will have a lot of things to adapt to whether they like it or not.

Some may need to learn about Synaptic package manager, what a repo is & how they work. They may have a scanner or printer that doesn't just plug & play, they may also want to use their iPod or other MP3 player. Many will have to be initiated into the codec & libdvdcss Linux club & on it goes...

Sealbhach said:

More importantly, they don't have to read manuals or wikis, they can go straight to Facebook which is more or less all they want.

They are easily pleased.

Sealbhach said:

This is even easier if they use Mint.

I agree.

Sealbhach said:

They're not interested in fixing things, they just want to use it.

Most people that have to fix things would rather be doing something else. When these people that are not interested in learning how the system that they have newly migrated to works do have a problem, they will throw their hands up in the air, call Linux (Ubuntu) excrement & go back to the devil they are more accustomed to.

From what I've read here Arch is an incredible distro - for sure the next distro I'll install when (ye WHEN) I break my Ubuntu.

dannytatom said: I don't use Arch, but I think it's specifically meant for people that want to learn/build from the ground up, not the *majority of people.*

That's a good point.

As for userfriendlyness: this is really a neverending discussion. It pops up regularly and nobody even agrees on what userfriendliness actually is. Do not go there. Or at least not in this thread. Keep it on topic please.

To the people who think that arch is overrated on this forum: why? I never saw a satisfactory answer to that.

der_joachim said: To the people who think that arch is overrated on this forum: why? I never saw a satisfactory answer to that.

I would imagine it's because there are a lot of Arch users here and we have a habit to recommend it frequently whenever someone asks for a distro to do 'x'.

Sealbhach said: For the majority of people who sit in front of a computer screen that is the exact definition of "not user friendly".

Why can't tech folk understand that most people don't want to have to learn how their computer works? They just want to use it like the TV or any other appliance.

. Installing Windows XP for the first time requires research and a grasping of a certain methodology. What if a computer user wanted to install XP on a laptop, with a SATA hd? They would eventually have to learn the process of booting from CD, then hacking to make a USB key appear as a floppy in order for the installer to recognize the SATA drivers, download all related drivers (touchpad, audio, video, wlan, lan, modem, touchscreen) to a USB key or CD, and install the drivers and all software from the newly installed system.

There is a learning curve for everything which requires research and practice. Arch has the advantage of the finest wiki available, with step-by-step instructions for installation and system configuration.

People use what's most comfortable for them. Since Windows is the de facto standard for the majority of users, Ubuntu may very well be easier for a majority of them to install. As was pointed out, though, the shell will remain a mysterious thing to avoid for them, forcing them to learn GNU/Linux from a crippling top-down approach, rather than a proper bottom-up approach.

UNIX is text-based and therefore, the abstraction of unreliable GUI tools will invariably cause annoying bugs for users. There are dozens of 'newbie distro' forums which prove this.

the main reason i can thing of it being underrated, is from my own experience when trying out linux for the first time, i read that arch was for intermediate to advanced users, and because i was with windows at the time, i tried arch, and couldnt get on with it, because i found it to hard to use, but after using ubuntu for a while, i understod basic linux stuff, so i found arch easy to install.

so the point is people who are clasified as advanced users when using windows try to use a linux distro thats above there knowlege level, then they slate it saying its bad.

markp1989 said: but after using ubuntu for a while, i understod basic linux stuff, so i found arch easy to install.

+1

Exactly. If I hadn't already learnt some stuff from Ubuntu I would have had no hope at all with Arch and I would have joined the legions of those who went away saying "Linux sux".

.

markp1989 said: but after using ubuntu for a while, i understood basic linux stuff

+2

I don't think i could say if arch is under or over rated. It seems more that it's all just a discussion over its installation of linux, and for some users it is excellent, and for others it's a no go. I'd say if you know enough to install arch then it doesn't differ that much from some other distros, as you should be able to set them up in to work in a similar way. For me the stand out thing for arch is the currency of the packages.

It will be interesting to see how the chakra live cd will change people's views, and use of arch.

I don't believe it's underated. I have been using Arch for about a week now. I researched the install for about 2 weeks prior. The install is not for the average pc end user. You have to want to get under the hood and be comfortable with the CLI. I had no troubles with the install the documentation they provide is really thorough. I had issues with alsa and eventually went with oss. I like the fast boot, AUR and pacman . I wouldn't recommend this as a first distro. It is really sweet once you put the time into setting it up.

I think that you don't even have to be comfortable with the CLI, you only need to be willing. :-)

Dealing with the terminal is not brain science; if a problem exists, the new Arch user needs to be able to access the internet (with a LiveCD if necessary) & the problem will be sorted out, via contact with Arch online or this Ubuntu/Arch forum.

Is Arch alone in this situation?

I did my first arch install this week on an old PII I had in the garage. I heard it could be pretty light, and instead of punting and doing a debian install, I decided to try arch.

Seems ok, but boy I had to mess with a lot up front. Clearly it's aimed at advanced users, many of whom (like me) are pretty well entrenched in another distro or distro family and not eager to relearn a whole new way to accomplish the exact same result.

I like pacman (even more after installing the shaman frontend), and I'm not settled on the init system; but overall, I'm not sure what I gained by not going with Debian. The package selection is a lot thinner overall, and it seems to pull in a lot of dependencies without asking (e.g. -- I installed a single KDE game and it pulled in the lot of them).

Really, the only reason I went to the trouble was because I specifically wanted to try something new and different, and force myself to experience Linux a little differently. How many other users with enough confidence to tackle Arch's install are going to want to go to the trouble to learn a whole new system?

Anyway, that's just my take on why it's not as popular. It seems to be a good system, but just another good system in a sea of good systems.

You got to be kidding me? They had to make Mint because people could not figure out how to add the codecs in Ubuntu or get DVD to work.

Every day someone can't get flash to work or java or DVD even though there is tons of documentation to tell you how. And you think people will sit and follow arch documentation?

jrusso2 said: You got to be kidding me? They had to make Mint because people could not figure out how to add the codecs in Ubuntu or get DVD to work.

Every day someone can't get flash to work or java or DVD even though there is tons of documentation to tell you how. And you think people will sit and follow arch documentation? While it definitely isn't right for everyone, I will stop to point out that the Arch documentation offers a step-by-step walkthrough, something not many other distros have available.

jrusso2 said:

You got to be kidding me? They had to make Mint because people could not figure out how to add the codecs in Ubuntu or get DVD to work.

:lolflag: Too true.

jrusso2 said:

Every day someone can't get flash to work or java or DVD even though there is tons of documentation to tell you how. And you think people will sit and follow arch documentation?

Well, some obviously do...

It only takes the desire to do it & a set of hardware components that are not obstructive.

I agree that Arch is not for everybody, though apart from some basic bodily functions, what is? :-)

cardinals_fan said: While it definitely isn't right for everyone, I will stop to point out that the Arch documentation offers a step-by-step walkthrough, something not many other distros have available.

You're confusing confusion for laziness. I readily admit that the reason my initial Arch installations were borked was because I was too lazy to sit and read the Beginners Guide step-by-step.

Arch won't hit the top echelon because its philosophy isn't about catering to the most people, but making the best system they can and explaining their case to the users. They aren't likely to change anything because it's "too hard".

If Arch was "complicated" or "difficult to understand" then we'd have a different case, but look at the guide. It could not POSSIBLY be simpler. For 99% of us you can copy things verbatim in each step except the username (unless you really want to use the name "archie"). And yet we hear about Arch being hard, why?

Well, look at how you install Ubuntu. Did you need a guide? No, you just hit "next" a few times until it was done. It's the EFFORT people are averse to, not the difficulty.

Arch offers a simple way of doing what needs to be done with an OS. Simplicity and elegance take precedence over 'newbie-friendliness'. If this philosophy appeals to you, then use it. Strong documentation is a key element of the Arch distro. If you can invest some time to read the excellent guides and documents to learn the most effective and proper way of using a UNIX-like OS from the bottom-up, then try Arch. If you're the kind of computer user who prefers fumbling their way through guis, asking elementary questions on forums to solve issues, flamewars, fanboyism, and polls, then use something else.

You know, I can appreciate arch for what it is, and Ubuntu for what it is; but I don't know why people have to decide that one or the other totally sucks because it's not how they want to work. I recognize advantages in a simple system that requires a bit more hands-on work, but I also realize there are times when those advantages aren't really worth the extra effort. I get annoyed now and then when some automation in Ubuntu makes a bad decision for me (yeah, I'm looking at you, resolvconf!), but I also realize that made life easier for 9/10 of the other Ubuntu users.

Get over it, folks. Your distro doesn't have to be the one true distro for everyone -- that's the whole point of FOSS.

cardinals_fan said: While it definitely isn't right for everyone, I will stop to point out that the Arch documentation offers a step-by-step walkthrough, something not many other distros have available.

I tried those walk throughs without much luck :(

Just changed over to Arch 64 a few days ago on this pc.

Arch is faster than Ubuntu- and you will learn more. I think those are important reasons.

Big issue with mounting my Seagate USB drive: "transport endpoint not connected" (As soon as I get that worked out everything will be peachy) & OpenOffice fonts.

I am truly giving Arch a chance here because I believe it can be a valuable tool.

lykwydchykyn said:

You know, I can appreciate arch for what it is, and Ubuntu for what it is; but I don't know why people have to decide that one or the other totally sucks because it's not how they want to work.

Before this poster (lykwydchykyn) or anyone else fools themselves, (oops, the ego doesn't like those words) with this line of thought, the *most*, important thing to remember, is just *who*, has control of the thought in question?

Do *you*, want to create a flame war from the kindling that is laying around in your or someone else's mind?? :lolflag:

Where has any *imagined* person from either imagined side, of the all of a sudden imagined demarcation line between *buntu & Arch ever said that either one sucks?

The quoted statement above is fallacious, has no credence & is the hot air that the always useless flame wars are fuelled by.

Hopefully, the poster didn't intend the seemingly obvious. 'Cause who needs that sh*t?

lykwydchykyn said:

I recognize advantages in a simple system that requires a bit more hands-on work, but I also realize there are times when those advantages aren't really worth the extra effort.

So what? :confused:

lykwydchykyn said:

I get annoyed now and then when some automation in Ubuntu makes a bad decision for me (yeah, I'm looking at you, resolv[.]conf!), but I also realize that made life easier for 9/10 of the other Ubuntu users.

So what? :confused:

lykwydchykyn said:

Get over it, folks. Your distro doesn't have to be the one true distro for everyone -- that's the whole point of FOSS.

Those who have gone to the trouble to actually install & use Arch... *Mostly*, appreciate & understand why they will always be in a minority as far as distro popularity is concerned.

*Arch users really couldn't care in the slightest about distro dominance;- so long as Arch stays in existence; then computing the way [I]they* like it to be (because it suits their particular computing style) will exist, & that is really the point I'm making.[/I]

It would seem that this is a point missed by lykwydchykyn, though I have been wrong before. :-D

So what?

Ok. As a poster of this tread i want to clear one thing. I am not intend to question ubuntu against arch. I just want to point the fact, that arch is not in the group of major or the "best" known distros. I thing arch is the perfect middle between the "hard" distro and "easy" one. And i think it is for every one. Every one that want it. Simply as that. To install new operating system you need to understand thing or two. Most of the people don't install windowz. They call someone who knows this system. Think about it. You expect to install new operating system and you can not do RTFM? Windowz systems also need from you to rtfm. And arch install guide is very clear and easy!

The more easy linux to install - the more popular it is? Maybe i am wrong and most modern linux users are the ones who want to do the simple "next-next-finish".

handy said:

*Arch users really couldn't care in the slightest about distro dominance;- so long as Arch stays in existence; then computing the way [I]they* like it to be (because it suits their particular computing style) will exist, & that is really the point I'm making.[/I]

It would seem that this is a point missed by lykwydchykyn, though I have been wrong before. :-D

So what?

I really don't know what you're talking about with me fooling myself with some line of reasoning. It seems to me you missed my point.

I'm not attacking your post, handy, or arch linux, for that matter; please re-read what I wrote without the defensive goggles and try to understand what I'm saying. The fact that you said "so what" indicates to me that you think I'm attacking you but can't work out how anything I'm saying is an attack. That would be because it's not.

My post was mainly in response to this:

If you're the kind of computer user who prefers fumbling their way through guis, asking elementary questions on forums to solve issues, flamewars, fanboyism, and polls, then use something else.

but there have been a few others like it in this thread, both for and against arch. Or at least, I guess I "imagined" this.

My whole point is live and let live. I like arch, but its approach conveys advantages that aren't universally applicable. When they are applicable, I would choose arch. Same goes for ubuntu. Why do we have to run down one distro or the other for our favorite to be good?

I guess that must be a great way to start a flame war: tell everyone to get along. Go figure.

Arch seems to be the new Gentoo. It's aimed at people who would rather tinker with their system than actually use it. I don't have a problem with that, but when people start bragging that their distro is more "optimized" or that they have more "control" over their system, it becomes pretty apparent they don't know what they are talking about.

Simian Man said: Arch seems to be the new Gentoo. It's aimed at people who would rather tinker with their system than actually use it. I don't have a problem with that, but when people start bragging that their distro is more "optimized" or that they have more "control" over their system, it becomes pretty apparent they don't know what they are talking about.

One certainly has more control over their system, when moving to Arch from Ubuntu ;)

Dr Small said: One certainly has more control over their system, when moving to Arch from Ubuntu ;)

You say that, but how *specifically* do you have more control? I always configure my system from the command line no matter what distro I am using. You know it isn't just Arch that uses configuration files right? :D

Simian Man said: You say that, but how *specifically* do you have more control? I always configure my system from the command line no matter what distro I am using. You know it isn't just Arch that uses configuration files right? :D

From my (limited) experience with arch, I notice that it uses much simpler systems than ubuntu -- e.g. the init system is quite basic by comparison. This is good if you want to tinker with things.

For instance, over the last couple days at work I've been tinkering around with my browser kiosks that use Ubuntu, trying to lighten the resource usage and boot time. I wanted to eliminate using gdm and just launch straight into X on boot (i had to use gdm because slim and xdm don't support auto-login). On arch, I saw that I could do this by adding a single line to the inittab. With ubuntu, because it uses upstart instead of bsd init, I had to write a wrapper script, edit the kiosk user's bash_profile, and dig down into /etc/event.d. It wasn't a monumental difference in effort, but it would have been a lot more straightforward and understandable on arch. So for that scenario, I'm contemplating moving the kiosks to arch (though my coworkers will crucify me for deploying yet another Linux distro).

Upstart is more complex because it addresses some cases where bsd init falls short. But when those cases don't apply, it just adds needless complications. That's when a distro like arch really shines, IMHO.

So does that amount to more control? Well, AFAICT you can control one as much as the other. But less abstraction and automation means there are fewer barriers to gaining direct control.

Does Arch have an advantage over Ubuntu if you do a command line install of Ubuntu? Or is the defining difference in their package management systems? I have read some documentation from the Arch site (for help with my own problems on Ubuntu, no less!), and I have to agree that the Ubuntu documentation pales by comparison.

One real reason that I have stuck with Ubuntu is for most of the software I use, the developers have PPAs that I can just add to my sources list to receive regular updates. And I'm not eager to re-compile each time the software updates...

sarah.fauzia said: Does Arch have an advantage over Ubuntu if you do a command line install of Ubuntu?

Arch offers superior documentation, a ports-like packaging system, the AUR, a simple BSD-style init and pacman, which is also very lightweight compared to other package managers. These could be considered advantages, for some.

MisfitI38 said: Arch offers superior documentation, a ports-like packaging system, the AUR, a simple BSD-style init and pacman, which is also very lightweight compared to other package managers.

These could be considered advantages, for some.

I actually do consider these advantages :). I've tried many distros (Puppy Linux, Fedora (KDE), openSUSE (KDE), Xubuntu, Kubuntu, Debian, Fluxbuntu)...and re-ininstalled Ubuntu (too many times to count), primarly because of apt-get, the extensiveness of its repos, and its usability (I couldn't even boot into Fluxbuntu! That killed the experience pretty quickly). I did a few searches into Arch Linux's, and it has all the programs I would need :). I'm a little hesitant about learning how to use pacman (I'm so comfortable with apt-get), but I think I'll give it a try. If I hadn't just done a command install of Ubuntu though I wouldn't think I'd attempt it. Thanks! :)

sarah.fauzia said: I'm a little hesitant about learning how to use pacman (I'm so comfortable with apt-get), but I think I'll give it a try. Thanks! :)

Don't worry, it's very easy. I find apt a bit more confusing to use, actually (apt's really not hard either, though).

The OP asks why Arch is so underrated. I don't think it is. It has its own fan base similar to the old Gentoo users. AFAIK thats where most of them came from.

Anyway I am sure Arch is faster then Ubuntu as Ubuntu is one of the slowest Linux around due to how much it runs in the background and its macro packages. A distro like Arch allows you to control things better

The furthest I have got with arch is partitioning and installing the base packages. I could not get a GUI using pacman and at the time the computer I tried installing it on was the only one I had. See sig.

I tried again 2 days ago but Arch would not recognize my wireless card.

tad1073 said: The furthest I have got with arch is partitioning and installing the base packages. I could not get a GUI using pacman and at the time the computer I tried installing it on was the only one I had. See sig.

I tried again 2 days ago but Arch would not recognize my wireless card.

it just takes time the first thing is to understand the quirks of the computer. i been playing with a old ibm t20 and arch, you can't just do a straight install or it will end up at a black screen, i been learning the settings needed and pretty much got it down. i'm in the middle of a install right now.

wireless is a whole other thing, you just got to play with it till you find something that works. i'm using a usb wireless, it's a zd1211, so for me i just install the firmware, add the settings to rc.conf, change the timeout in /etc/rc.d/network, add "dhcpcd wlan0 &" to rc.local, that's it i just "!" the eth0 in rc.conf and im on wireless.

this page will get you started: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Wireless_Setup

@lykwydchykyn: Thanks, that post showed far more thought. :-)

Simian Man said: Arch seems to be the new Gentoo. It's aimed at people who would rather tinker with their system than actually use it. I don't have a problem with that, but when people start bragging that their distro is more "optimized" or that they have more "control" over their system, it becomes pretty apparent they don't know what they are talking about.

In the past month (after the Xorg catastrophe), the only reason I've gone into my command line was to install something from AUR and update something.

Yeah, Arch is totally not for people who want to actually use their systems. #-o

Yeah, Arch is totally not for people who want to actually use their systems.

:lolflag: once set up it's perfectly usable as long as you don't update, which is good if your setting it up for others to use. on other distro's i also remove the update manager just to avoid things like that.

Of course Arch is a great distro. Personally I did not find Gnome to much be much faster in Arch though. Others with more experience may differ in opinion. Ubuntu Intrepid is fast on my hardware!

After I spent days configuring Arch I wanted to find faster scripting copy methods during install. For instance I'm sure some people are saving their rc.conf files to speed up the configuration during install.

kerry_s said: :lolflag: once set up it's perfectly usable as long as you don't update, which is good if your setting it up for others to use. on other distro's i also remove the update manager just to avoid things like that.

Man if I never updated (something I can't help but do compulsively...) then Arch would probably be the most rock solid system I've ever used. The thing is just bulletproof until a hiccup happens after an update that I have to iron out, and even that's a rare occurrence.

Arch has this stupid reputation for requiring constant elbows-deep tinkering to keep running but that's not even remotely true. Once it's running, it's running. If you're not installing anything, updating, or customizing anything, then things are pretty seamless.

kerry_s said: once set up it's perfectly usable as long as you don't update, which is good if your setting it up for others to use. on other distro's i also remove the update manager just to avoid things like that.

Just don't let anyone connect to the internet with that system. :twisted:

Goodness! I am so glad I tried Arch Linux out, and now I have a very spiffy system using only 200MB of RAM...the most I've seen was less than 500MB. Far, far better than Ubuntu. And all of my customizations were so easy to do; for instance, configuring middle wheel scrolling with my trackpoint actually worked perfectly in Arch, and didn't need an extra little hack I had to use with Ubuntu. Similar experience with configuring my cursor theme: it actually listened to my .Xdefaults file! LCD-friendly fonts were similarly easy...everything, overall, has been pretty easy. The only scary thing was right in the beginning, when I actually installed GRUB to sda1 (/), instead of sda, so I couldn't even boot into Arch. I re-installed Arch after that, which didn't take long because I had understood it better by this time.

I think my distro hopping days are over, thanks to Arch. I really am impressed by its stability and ease of use. I've only had to install a few things from source, but with yaourt, it's painless. Thanks to all who excellently recommended the excellent!

By the way, is anyone else using Midori and having trouble adding attachments to their posts? I would have attached a screenshot of my desktop, but the attachment feature doesn't appear to be working in Midori.

RedSquirrel said: Just don't let anyone connect to the internet with that system. :twisted:

:lolflag: luckily the wireless works perfectly. the only thing grandma does is check her email, i run updates on the rare occasions i'm over there, so it should be very reliable.

hey, does anyone got a nice menu button icon for arch?

i'm looking for something like the debian menu icon but with the arch logo instead. see pic

sarah.fauzia said: Goodness! I am so glad I tried Arch Linux out, and now I have a very spiffy system using only 200MB of RAM...the most I've seen was less than 500MB. Far, far better than Ubuntu. And all of my customizations were so easy to do; for instance, configuring middle wheel scrolling with my trackpoint actually worked perfectly in Arch, and didn't need an extra little hack I had to use with Ubuntu. Similar experience with configuring my cursor theme: it actually listened to my .Xdefaults file! LCD-friendly fonts were similarly easy...everything, overall, has been pretty easy. The only scary thing was right in the beginning, when I actually installed GRUB to sda1 (/), instead of sda, so I couldn't even boot into Arch. I re-installed Arch after that, which didn't take long because I had understood it better by this time.

I think my distro hopping days are over, thanks to Arch. I really am impressed by its stability and ease of use. I've only had to install a few things from source, but with yaourt, it's painless. Thanks to all who excellently recommended the excellent!

By the way, is anyone else using Midori and having trouble adding attachments to their posts? I would have attached a screenshot of my desktop, but the attachment feature doesn't appear to be working in Midori.

what method did you use for your trackpoint? mines the t20 i made a file /etc/hal/fdi/policy/mouse-wheel.fdi with:

<match key="info.product" string="TPPS/2 IBM TrackPoint">
 <merge key="input.x11_options.EmulateWheel" type="string">true</merge>
 <merge key="input.x11_options.EmulateWheelButton" type="string">2</merge>
 <merge key="input.x11_options.YAxisMapping" type="string">4 5</merge>
 <merge key="input.x11_options.XAxisMapping" type="string">6 7</merge>
 <merge key="input.x11_options.Emulate3Buttons" type="string">true</merge>
 <merge key="input.x11_options.EmulateWheelTimeout" type="string">200</merge>
</match>

to get mine to work. just would like to know if there is a easier way. :)

sarah.fauzia said: Goodness! I am so glad I tried Arch Linux out, and now I have a very spiffy system using only 200MB of RAM...the most I've seen was less than 500MB. Far, far better than Ubuntu. And all of my customizations were so easy to do; for instance, configuring middle wheel scrolling with my trackpoint actually worked perfectly in Arch, and didn't need an extra little hack I had to use with Ubuntu. Similar experience with configuring my cursor theme: it actually listened to my .Xdefaults file! LCD-friendly fonts were similarly easy...everything, overall, has been pretty easy. The only scary thing was right in the beginning, when I actually installed GRUB to sda1 (/), instead of sda, so I couldn't even boot into Arch. I re-installed Arch after that, which didn't take long because I had understood it better by this time.

I think my distro hopping days are over, thanks to Arch. I really am impressed by its stability and ease of use. I've only had to install a few things from source, but with yaourt, it's painless. Thanks to all who excellently recommended the excellent!

By the way, is anyone else using Midori and having trouble adding attachments to their posts? I would have attached a screenshot of my desktop, but the attachment feature doesn't appear to be working in Midori.

Just for the record, CrunchBang Linux based on Ubuntu 8.10 runs very well with only 128Mb of RAM. Sorry for the bit of advertising here!

kerry_s said: hey, does anyone got a nice menu button icon for arch?

i'm looking for something like the debian menu icon but with the arch logo instead. see pic

The hydroxygen icon set has menu icons for different distros, including arch.

kerry_s said: hey, does anyone got a nice menu button icon for arch?

i'm looking for something like the debian menu icon but with the arch logo instead. see pic

On the Arch website they have a page with their Arch logo pack in .svg images: http://www.archlinux.org/art/

Direct Download link: ftp://ftp.archlinux.org/other/artwork/archlinux-artwork-1.2.tar.gz

Now install the app called "Inkscape" and you can change the size of the image, or even customize the colors. If you have never used Inkscape then read the tutorials in the "Help" menu. It will teach a bunch of tricks that make inkscape fun to use. You can even make a glassy start button (like windows) with the Arch logo in it. I especially like the "wmlogos" that have the Arch logo with the Window Manager logo in the arch of it.

As for replacing your icon..... I know in xfce4 you have the option right in your menu in right click: Properties-->--Button icons. In Gnome I think you just need to replace the start-here.svg icon in your /usr/share/icons/"icon-theme-name"/scalable/places/start-here.svg..... I'm not sure about anything else.

You could also look in gnome-looks.org for Arch start buttons, or in deviantART..... you can even ask in the Artwork section of the Arch forums.

thanks guys, but i want it to say "menu" like the debian 1 i have. see pic

kerry_s said: thanks guys, but i want it to say "menu" like the debian 1 i have. see pic

You could make that with GIMP or Inkscape..... using the logos I linked you to..... and add the "MENU" part using the font that you like.

crimesaucer said: You could make that with GIMP or Inkscape..... using the logos I linked you to..... and add the "MENU" part using the font that you like.

i know i'll probably make something, but i'm lazy right now. i'd have to do it from scratch though, i grabbed that icon from kde-look and don't remember the license, so best just to avoid messing with someone else's work.

kerry_s said: i know i'll probably make something, but i'm lazy right now. i'd have to do it from scratch though, i grabbed that icon from kde-look and don't remember the license, so best just to avoid messing with someone else's work.

That shouldn't matter as long as you don't share it with other people or upload it to a site claiming that it is your original artwork..... it's just for your own computer..... it's not like you are creating a commercial distro with it and claiming it to be all your own and then putting your own licenses on it.

I know there are touchy rules and some people are zealous about things, but most the themes I've seen on gnome-looks.org had the simple rule of giving credit to the original artist/theme-writer after you customize it in your own way for your own use. And no commercial use.

crimesaucer said: That shouldn't matter as long as you don't share it with other people or upload it to a site claiming that it is your original artwork..... it's just for your own computer..... it's not like you are creating a commercial distro with it and claiming it to be all your own and then putting your own licenses on it.

I know there are touchy rules and some people are zealous about things, but most the themes I've seen on gnome-looks.org had the simple rule of giving credit to the original artist/theme-writer after you customize it in your own way for your own use. And no commercial use.

Most open source stuff for Linux are under the GNU license, which allows the user to customize the software and release it as something new that is based on that certain package. The cutomized packge cannot get it's own licence though. Ubuntu is a good example: It is based on Debian, cutomomized and comes with the new name Ubuntu and again we have Linux Mint which is based on Ubuntu and thay all have the GNU licence.

If something is not under the GNU licence be careful about what you are sharing my frind!

kerry_s said: what method did you use for your trackpoint? mines the t20 i made a file /etc/hal/fdi/policy/mouse-wheel.fdi with:

<match key="info.product" string="TPPS/2 IBM TrackPoint">
 <merge key="input.x11_options.EmulateWheel" type="string">true</merge>
 <merge key="input.x11_options.EmulateWheelButton" type="string">2</merge>
 <merge key="input.x11_options.YAxisMapping" type="string">4 5</merge>
 <merge key="input.x11_options.XAxisMapping" type="string">6 7</merge>
 <merge key="input.x11_options.Emulate3Buttons" type="string">true</merge>
 <merge key="input.x11_options.EmulateWheelTimeout" type="string">200</merge>
</match>

to get mine to work. just would like to know if there is a easier way. :)

No, I did the same thing. However, to get it to work in Ubuntu I not only had to do this; I had to use a little hack suggested at aliencam's blog. This is definitely easier (simpler) than doing that! :)